Re: PROPOSED: 32/64 bit coexistance
- To: George Kraft IV <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <Brad_Brech/Rochester/IBM@de.ibm.com>, <email@example.com>, <Michael_Day/Austin/IBM@de.ibm.com>, <Ron_Clark/Austin/IBM@de.ibm.com>, <George_Kraft/Austin/IBM@de.ibm.com>, <Paul_McKenney/Beaverton/IBM@de.ibm.com>, <Kenneth_Rozendal/Austin/IBM@de.ibm.com>, <Satya_Sharma/Austin/IBM@de.ibm.com>, <ADLUNG@de.ibm.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: PROPOSED: 32/64 bit coexistance
- From: <venom@DarkStar.sns.it>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:56:06 +0200 (CEST)
- Message-id: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <3BA6071A.A5829430@austin.ibm.com>
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, George Kraft IV wrote:
> > > Thus we're suggesting that /lib is always a
> > > symbolic link to /lib32 to grant backward compatibility and new 64bit
> > > applications to use and install into /lib64.
It is really ugly, also if I do admitt it could be usefull.
But, what about the other stuff inside of /lib directory?
This sstuff should fully do under /lib32?
For example /lib/modules on alpha would have 64 bit modules inside...
I would suggest /lib to be a real directory, and inside of there libraries
should de sym links, but this solution is ugly too, and could be a little
confusing for unexperienced people.
So I have some esitation, but I do not have something better to propose.